beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Defendant lent money necessary for the repayment of loans, living expenses, etc., the Plaintiff loaned KRW 52,00,000,000, in total, including KRW 1,000,000 on November 14, 2014, KRW 11,000,000 on November 21, 2014, KRW 5,000,000 on December 17, 2014, and KRW 35,00,000 on July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant’s account.
As to this, the defendant asserts that he, while leaving his position to another insurance company, only received scargs or activity expenses from the plaintiff, and not borrowed from the plaintiff.
2. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment exchange money, the plaintiff claims the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the cause is a loan
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221). According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant the total amount of KRW 52,00,000,000 on November 14, 2014, KRW 11,000,000 on November 21, 2014, KRW 17, 17, 2000 on December 17, 2014, KRW 52,000,000 on July 35, 2015, and KRW 00 on July 15, 2015.
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: ① there was no certificate of loan between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to KRW 52,00,000; ② no agreement and payment of interest appears to have existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on ordinary loans; ③ there is no objective evidence to prove that there was a friendly relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on several occasions to lend money without interest; ③ there was no proof to prove that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the said money; ④ there was no reason to prove that the Defendant, who was an insurance company’s employee, retired from office as “C insurance agency around November 2014, which was the time when the Defendant was paid the said money; and ④ around July 2015, “D Co.”.